Aaron Franks

In a family law proceeding involving cryptocurrency assets, the applicant brought a long motion regarding disclosure.

The respondents sought leave under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to file an expert affidavit after having already cross-examined the applicant on her motion materials.

The court dismissed the request for leave, finding the respondents failed to show the evidence responded to a matter raised on cross-examination or provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

The court also ruled on several refusals from questioning, ordering the respondents to answer some questions while upholding other refusals.

The moving party father sought to stay an arbitration award requiring him to pay over $1.8 million in retroactive child support and nearly $800,000 in costs pending his appeal.

The mother opposed the stay and brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

Applying the RJR-Macdonald test, the court found the father raised serious issues to be tried but failed to establish irreparable harm, noting his significant wealth and access to capital.

The court dismissed the motion to stay the child support award, granted a partial stay of the costs award, and ordered the father to post $75,000 as security for the costs of the appeal.

The applicant brought a motion to proceed to an uncontested trial and to sell the matrimonial home after the respondent failed to file an Answer for over three months.

The respondent requested an extension of time to file his responding materials.

The court dismissed the respondent's request, finding the delay inordinate and unexplained.

The court granted the applicant's motion, allowing her to proceed uncontested and ordering the sale of the matrimonial home, with net proceeds to be held in trust.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, retroactive support, and the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent opposed spousal support, relying on a marriage contract that waived it.

The court found a serious triable issue regarding whether the marriage contract complied with the objectives of the Divorce Act, allowing an interim spousal support award of $25,500 per month and child support of $9,918 per month.

The court deferred the issue of retroactive support to trial but granted the applicant's request to order the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

Following an appeal of a family law arbitration award where success was divided, both parties sought costs of the appeal.

The applicant sought $70,000 and the respondent sought $111,734.71.

The court reviewed the principles of costs under the Family Law Rules, including the impact of offers to settle and divided success.

Finding that neither party was predominantly successful and neither acted unreasonably or in bad faith, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs of the appeal.

The court also reduced the costs of the arbitration payable by the applicant to the respondent from $75,000 to $49,150 to reflect the appellate outcome.

The applicant mother and respondent father both appealed an arbitration award concerning parenting and financial issues.

The mother appealed the arbitrator's decision requiring her to return with the children from Indiana to Ontario, arguing it failed to prioritize the children's best interests and the maximum contact principle.

The father appealed the arbitrator's decision granting the mother primary care and final decision-making authority upon their return to Ontario.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed both appeals regarding the parenting issues, finding the arbitrator made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of mixed fact and law.

The court upheld the return to Ontario and the parenting arrangements, while reserving judgment on the financial issues.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support following the parties' separation.

The applicant, who recently underwent a double lung transplant, sought $200,000 per month based on the respondent's high income and their lavish lifestyle during the marriage.

The respondent, a wealthy individual with complex financial affairs, proposed $40,000 per month plus medical expenses.

The court conducted a budget analysis and ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $54,000 per month, plus up to $28,000 per month for a personal care assistant, pending further financial disclosure and a final determination.

In an addendum to a previous summary judgment decision, the plaintiff sought clarification on whether its professional negligence claim against the defendant lawyer and law firm was dismissed, and whether it was entitled to a $60,000 purchase price.

The court confirmed that the professional negligence claim was dismissed because it was pleaded as equivalent to the failed breach of fiduciary duty claim.

The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the purchase price because the underlying contract had been abandoned and repudiated by both parties.

Following the dismissal of a motion to remove the respondent's counsel in a family law proceeding, the respondent sought costs of $88,729.26 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties argued the quantum was unreasonable and sought to have costs fixed at $30,000 payable in the cause.

The court found the respondent's counsel's hours and rates to be somewhat excessive compared to the moving parties' counsel, but acknowledged the importance of the motion.

The court fixed costs at $50,000, payable forthwith, rejecting the moving parties' argument that payment should be deferred until the equalization payment was determined.

The parties settled a motion for contempt and a cross-motion, leaving the issue of costs to be determined by the court.

Both parties sought costs of approximately $40,000.

The court found that the respondent's original motion was necessary to enforce compliance with a final order regarding travel consent and life insurance, whereas the applicant's cross-motion was unnecessary.

The court awarded costs to the respondent, noting the applicant's unreasonable behaviour, including advancing a significant bill of costs for services rendered by his fiancée, who was not his solicitor of record.

The applicant was ordered to pay $27,454 in costs.

In a family law proceeding involving custody and access issues, the applicant sought a restraining order preventing the respondent from publishing or disseminating private intimate information about her on the internet.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction under s. 46 of the Family Law Act to issue such an order where threats of online disclosure created psychological and emotional fear.

The court held that reasonable grounds to fear for safety can include psychological safety and that threats to publicly disseminate intimate information could justify a restraining order.

The court further held that s. 46(3) permits broader terms where appropriate, including restrictions on online publication.

A restraining order was granted pending further court order to preserve a reasonable atmosphere for litigation and protect the parties and child.

The respondent husband sought leave to appeal an interlocutory procedural order relating to filing, questioning, and refusals to answer undertakings in a family proceeding.

The Divisional Court considered the criteria for granting leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the requirements for leave were not satisfied because the prior consent order cited did not constitute a conflicting decision and the proposed appeal did not raise issues of public importance.

The matter was characterized as a procedural dispute between family litigants.

Leave to appeal was therefore denied and the motion dismissed.

The respondent father applied in Ontario to vary a final consent order respecting the primary residence of the parties' six-year-old daughter.

The applicant mother moved to transfer the variation application to Manitoba under s. 6(3) of the Divorce Act.

The court found that the child, who had lived in Manitoba for almost her entire life, was most substantially connected to Manitoba.

The court concluded that transferring the proceeding was in the child's best interests and would not impede the proper administration of justice.

The motion to transfer was granted.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision that used final offer selection to determine child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

The appellant argued that the process was contrary to law because it was ill-suited for multiple issues, lacked sworn testimony and cross-examination, and the arbitrator's reasons were inadequate.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that family law arbitrations are not required to mirror court processes, the parties were treated equally and fairly, and the arbitrator's reasons were sufficient.